Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by indicating that the opposition recognises the government's desire to provide certainty to Murray-Darling Basin communities by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases. On that basis we will not be standing in the way of this government initiative. The success of the Basin Plan has always rested on bipartisan support at the federal level, the support of the basin states and at least nominal support of agricultural and environmental groups. Given the support of the basin states, Labor will not oppose the passage of the Water Amendment Bill, in the interests of bipartisanship and the stability of the Basin Plan.

The bill proposes to amend the Water Act 2007, to impose a duty on the Commonwealth not to exceed the 1,500 gigalitre-limit on surface water purchases in the Murray-Darling Basin at a time of entering into the water purchase agreement contract. Secondly, it amends the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 to provide increased flexibility in the recovery of some 450 gigalitres of water through efficiency measures funded under the Water for the Environment Special Account.

The success of the Basin Plan has always rested on the bipartisan support I referred to. At the federal level, that has been very important and of course we have strived to, as best we can, extend that to the states.

As many in this Senate would know, disagreement over the management of our most important river system and the food bowls which rely on it actually predates Federation. The first conference on the Murray was held in 1863, decades before Federation. More than 30 years later, South Australian Premier Charles Kingston, at the 1897 Federation Convention, declared he held out hope, and I quote:

… the Federal Parliament will be trusted with Federal questions of the gravity involved in the use of the waters of the Murray.

The history of conflict surrounding the provision of an overarching management framework for the whole basin also has its place in history, with recorded disputes among the colonies. At the 1898 Melbourne Constitutional Convention, the same Premier stated:

We ought to give the federal parliament which we propose to call into existence; the power—when it deems fit, to legislate on this question in order to remove this fertile source of conflict and friction between the colonies.

So despite the many conferences and conventions it took the severe Federation drought, which started in 1895 and was widespread by 1902, to bring the states together to come to some agreement on the management of the Murray. A conference in Corowa, in 1902, provided the catalyst, eventually resulting in the River Murray Waters Agreement, signed in 1915, by the governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth. This was followed by the formation of the River Murray Commission, in 1917.

The economic value of the basin's water resources to the states—South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales of course—has seen a legacy of construction resulting in a highly regulated system.

Since the early 1900s numerous water regulation structures, dams and weirs, were built. Almost not a drop of rain falls in the basin and gets to run unimpeded into the sea. Instead, water is stored in dams, weir ponds and modified storages like Menindee Lakes.

By the late 1960s drought, the overextraction of water for irrigation and rising salinity began to put the health of the Murray-Darling system on the radar of politicians and users alike and of course of the community more broadly.

But with increased regulation and an increase in surface water extractions, together with a drought in 1968, environmental impacts were starting to emerge. Water quality had deteriorated to the point that the first benchmark study of salinity, the GHD study, took place in 1970.

We fast forward to the drought of the early 2000s, the millennium drought, as it was clear that more needed to be done. Under the Howard government, the National Water Initiative was agreed and the Water Act 2007 was passed through the parliament.

And now, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the former minister for water, the member for Watson, since 2012 we have had a basin plan that is restoring our rivers to health, supporting strong regional communities and ensuring sustainable food production.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan—or the 'Basin Plan' as it has been referred to—has bipartisan support at the federal level and the support of the basin states: South Australia, Victoria, NSW, Queensland and of course the ACT.

Importantly, it has also had the support of farming, environmental and Indigenous groups. Not everyone has had their way of course. Not everyone got all they wanted from the plan, but it remains supported. The plan supports the very important environmental needs of the basin rivers. Within the basin there are approximately 30,000 wetlands; over 60 species of fish;    124 families of macro-invertebrates; 98 species of waterbirds; four threatened water-dependent ecological communities; and hundreds and hundreds of plant species supported by key flood plains.

So it is obvious that this is a very important, if not the most important, system to Australia. The health of the river channels themselves and the flora and fauna they support is not only vital in its own right but vital for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities.

Related to environmental needs and environmental flows is the fact that Aboriginal nations and communities in the basin want and should have access to the flows they need to ensure the continuation of their culture and their social and economic wellbeing. Aboriginal people feel a deep connection to their land and the waters that flow through and across them. This needs to be recognised and provided for, not as an exercise in imperial patronage but by ensuring that Aboriginal people are empowered through water rights. And when environmental water is released into the rivers and wetlands Aboriginal expertise also needs to be heeded. The deep knowledge of Aboriginal people of the river systems means that they have important, if not vital, advice to give our water managers that, if heeded, can add great value to their work. Groups such as the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations have a lot to offer us, if we listen

Engagement with Aboriginal people in the basin cannot be done as a 'tick-box' exercise: proper, ongoing engagement will benefit us all.

The Murray-Darling Basin also supports agriculture on a grand scale—around 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. According to ABS figures, in 2012-13 the basin accounted for over 50 per cent of Australia's irrigated produce, including nearly 100 per cent of Australia's rice, 96 per cent of Australia's cotton, 75 per cent of Australia's grapes, 59 per cent of Australia's hay, 54 per cent of Australia's fruit, 52 per cent of Australia's production from sheep and livestock and    45 per cent of Australia's dairy.

Around two million people live and work in the basin, in communities ranging from fewer than 1,000 people to large urban centres such as Wagga Wagga, with over 45,000 people. A further 1.2 million people depend on its water to survive. All of this agricultural production and the two million people living in the basin rely on a healthy, functioning river system. So, restructuring and reform in such an important area as this is always very difficult. I suppose it can be said that the bill before the Senate is about redressing the issues still held by some of those basin communities in particular.

The Basin Plan brought into force in November 2012 will set basin-wide sustainable diversion limits and return 2,750 gigalitres to the environment. Basin states are required to prepare water resource plans that will give effect to the sustainable diversion limits from July 2019. Under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, up to 650 gigalitres can be provided through supply measures and projects that deliver environmental outcomes with less water. Proposals for these supply measures are, I understand, in varying states of preparation and assessment at the moment. There is bipartisan commitment to bridge the gap between what these supply measures can provide and the 2,750 gigalitres to be returned to the environment.

On top of the 2,750-gigalitre target, an additional 450 gigalitres will be returned to the environment. Funding was provided through legislation in 2013 for this additional 450 gigalitres, which must be obtained through projects that ensure no social or economic downsides for basin communities, such as on-farm irrigation projects. There is $1.78 billion in the Water for the Environment Special Account, including $200 million for the removal of constraints identified in the constraints management strategy.

To date, more than 1,900 gigalitres have been recovered for the environment. This includes more than 1,160 gigalitres of water through water purchases, over 600 gigalitres through infrastructure investment and over 180 gigalitres through other basin state recovery actions. This is water that can be used at appropriate times and where it is needed to improve flows and help restore health throughout the system. Already, we have seen successful water releases overseen by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the state and regional water management agencies.

Importantly, there has been significant Commonwealth investment in ensuring that farms remain productive as the plan is delivered. Indeed, $2 million a day is being and will be spent on efficiency and infrastructure measures out to 2019. This is not only a significant amount of money; it is a significant commitment to the Basin Plan, to the health of our rivers and to our ecosystems and communities they support.

As I mentioned earlier, Labor recognises the government's wish to provide certainty to basin communities by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases. As with the Basin Plan itself, and many aspects of it, there are conflicting points of view that do need to be acknowledged on the issue of water purchase versus infrastructure measures as the best means of achieving the outcomes of the Basin Plan. Labor has consulted with various stakeholders with divergent points of view about this issue and carefully considered their points of view. I have listened to those points of view myself, and that is what an effective opposition does.

We have carefully considered the position of the basin states as well. Again, on that basis we will not be opposing the bill. Given the support of the basin states, we will not be standing in the way of this bill in the interests of bipartisanship—which has always, of course, underscored the strength of our progression to the point we have reached today.

For the opposition, there are two key imperatives for the success of the Basin Plan and these imperatives are the same for our approach to the cap on water purchases. These are bipartisan support at the federal level; and the support of all the basin states. Given that there is support from the basin states for this reform, as well as the progress that has been made to date in recovering water for the environment, Labor will not oppose this bill.

As I said, the success of the Basin Plan has always rested on that bipartisanship and, of course, on the support of those key basin states—particularly New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 has been a success story in and of itself. As I said in my second reading speech, I do pay tribute to the then minister, Tony Burke, the member for Watson, who did a tremendous amount of work to ensure that we are where we are today in debating this bill. He did a tremendous amount of work on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, on the issues raised by stakeholders and member states.

In considering the depth and detail of the bill before us, Labor will support it and vote with the government on this bill.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Water Amendment Bill is a sloppy piece of legislation. It is very confusing, and when you sit down and read it you really wonder what the purpose of it is. What is the intent? Clearly the government has an aim here. You start to wonder what the driver is. What is the political interest going on here? What was the intent of the Liberal and National Parties when they came up with this? You would have to conclude that it is to support their constituency—agricultural big businesses—and it looks like the Nationals were probably a key driver, because the more you look into this legislation the more you come to the conclusion that it is about unravelling the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is an incredibly serious point with regard to water policy in this country, the driest continent on earth. We have already seen under this government the demise of the National Water Commission, effectively, and the National Water Initiative. Now the intent is to unravel what was already a compromise—the Water Act was already a compromise—and we should remember that as the government now pushes to have a cap in the legislation.

The starting point for any legislation on water should be that we live in an increasingly climate changed world. That should mean that we address the long-term certainties around water in the Murray-Darling Basin. That is how the Greens approach the critical issue of managing the Murray-Darling. But, as I said, this bill undermines the Water Act that it seeks to amend. The Water Bill overrides the Commonwealth's obligations to achieve the sustainable diversion limits mandated in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The bill limits how much water can be bought back from willing sellers. It is an extraordinary change. It really is incredibly serious. Now we hear that Labor is going to be sitting there with the Liberals and the Nationals and allowing this to go through.

The bill removes flexibility to achieve the aims of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is essential to managing water that we recognise the importance of the current plan. In a political, budget constrained environment, and into the future, the responsibility of the government to invest wisely in cost-efficient and proven effective outcomes should also be a given. The bill risks substantial expenditure of public monies on projects that may further reduce the net amount of water available to groundwater or downstream water users across the basin. With this in mind, the Australian Greens do not support the passing of the bill. When you look into issues around water policy, certainty is so important, and that is something that this bill removes. The health of the Murray-Darling river system—the protected wetlands, basin communities, the flood plains, agricultural soils and crops—requires certainty at some level of water flow. To achieve the health of the basin rivers, certainty of flow is absolutely paramount. This is particularly so for the downstream ecosystems and communities. The River Lakes and Coorong Action Group remind us that the Coorong and surrounds—and this is from their submission—'bears a great deal of the risk if the Murray-Darling Basin Plan fails to restore the health of the River system and achieve the objects of the Water Act 2007'.

What do we mean by certainty? Certainty of a guaranteed buyer is central. The water licensees who wish to sell water entitlements surplus to their requirements need the certainty of a guaranteed buyer in the Commonwealth, especially when times are tough. The Commonwealth itself needs to be certain that it has flexibility to meet its legislative and ethical obligations to achieve sustainable diversion limits through the purchase of environmental water licences from willing sellers when needed. The bill itself needs to provide certainty in its aims, definitions and outcomes. But it contains no certainties. It is a confusing piece of legislation. Again, it is about unravelling the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. So much time and so many resources went into that plan, with such a fundamental compromise already. It was a small step forward, but now it looks like we will be left with nothing.

Any speakers in this place who say otherwise—that it is not full of uncertainties—are misleading the public. What you see here, I believe, are the proponents of the bill walking both sides of the road. We said this regularly with the Nationals and I will be interested to hear their comments. It is classic: selling themselves that they are there for the farming folk and there for the farming communities. When you look into this bill you see that on the one hand they say that, but on another hand: who do they deliver for? This bill delivers for big water interests—big irrigators. Do not come into the debate and distort the Greens' position. We are not against all irrigation. We are about getting the balance right so that farming can be sustainable in this country as we face the incredible challenges of climate change. That is what a responsible government should be doing.

The 2007 Murray-Darling Basin Plan, with its supporting legislation, was written in response to what was then one of the worst droughts in Australia's written history. It is recognised that the overallocation of water from the Murray-Darling Basin has affected not only the ecological wellbeing of the rivers but also the long-term sustainability of the communities that run the length of those waterways and their water catchments and the amazing flood plains that make up the Murray-Darling Basin. Without healthy, flowing water in the Murray-Darling rivers and their tributaries, their irreplaceable environmental values and the communities that depend on the health of the basin's water will wither and die. This is not guaranteed, and this bill puts it under much greater threat.

The current Murray-Darling Basin Plan is informed by a shared recognition that a nationally coordinated approach to water reform is vital to addressing the overallocation of water out of the Murray-Darling Basin. As noted by the River Lakes and Coorong Action Group, the plan represents well over 20 years of planning and negotiation between many competing stakeholder interests. In their submission, the group states that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be implemented and evaluated as it was designed to achieve the agreed objectives of the Water Act 2007. I emphasise that point again, because this is what is being lost with this bill—a deep undermining of important legislation, the Water Act. Yes, the Greens criticised it at the time, but it was still something of an advance. We cannot go backwards to that point; we cannot see another fundamental aspect of managing our water resources cut up and divided in such a sinister way.

Central to the plan is the reduction of water extracted and diverted from the Basin to sustainable limits by 2019, stated in the 2012 Plan to be 10,873 gigalitres per annum. Now 2750 gigalitres of environmental water must be recovered each year with the option of offsetting this volume by supply measures. The ability of the Commonwealth to purchase water licences to meet the previously mandated recovery of 2750 gigalitres per annum of environmental water is the safety net of the whole Plan and thus a central plank to achieving the objects of the Water Act 2007.

I emphasise again that the 2750 gigalitres was a major compromise, and it is worth remembering just how much of a compromise it was. Remember the years of debate, all the resources, all the experts and all those discussions. The scientific experts identified that what was needed was the return of an additional 7600 gigalitres per annum of water to provide a high level of certainty to achieving the required environmental outcomes. Remember that when we use the term 'environmental outcomes' you should not try to narrow that down in a reductionist approach to this debate. Environmental outcomes are about the health of the whole system; it is about the health of the communities and about the productivity of the region. That is what we mean by 'environmental outcomes'. That is what many experts recommended in 2007. As I say, the 2750 gigalitres per annum was a major compromise; that amount was seen as minimal for the health of the Murray-Darling river systems. We know that the Commonwealth is responsible for ensuring that the sustainable diversion limits or SDLs are achieved.

The SDLs should be able to live up to their name and be sustainable. Retaining the ability to purchase environmental water if any shortfall in water recovery occurs is essential to the Plan. That is how it should work, but this bill does not pass that test of being able to restore water. The bill imposes a limit of 1500 gigalitres per annum on the volume of environmental water the Commonwealth may purchase to meet its obligations under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is where it becomes incredible: the cap of 1500 gigalitres in the bill is a rigid limitation. We know there are complexities in managing the water and we know terrible droughts can come, but putting such a low cap into the legislation will make it so much harder.

It really is a very deep betrayal, particularly when we see Labor, the Nationals and Liberals lining up on this. Surely, there should be more debate and surely we should be listening to the excellent submissions that warned us about what could happen if this bill passes. To share another voice from those submissions, let me quote that of the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations:

By placing additional costs and restraints on the Commonwealth’s ability to recover water for the environment, the Bill will severely hamper its ability to meet Water Act objects…

That is the essence of the problem that we have here. This bill does not line up with the intent of the Water Act. It is actually about dividing it up. There was also a joint submission from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Environment Victoria and Environmental Justice Australia. Their submission stated:

Our primary concern with the Bill is that the cap will be in the Water Act itself. Since the Water Act takes precedence as a legal instrument over the Basin Plan, honouring the cap will take precedence over honouring the SDLs.

That is why I keep saying that it is about unravelling the very important work that was done in bringing forward that Water Bill.

If the Commonwealth cannot meet the SDLs via infrastructure upgrades or efficiency measures—because, for example, they become prohibitively expensive or they simply do not deliver the amount of water required—it will not be able to use buy-backs to bridge the gap. That is the advice from the ACF, Environment Victoria and Environmental Justice Australia, and that advice should be followed. The warnings are there and they are clear. There is no indication in the bill as to what would happen if the Commonwealth finds itself in this position, because as further noted by that joint submission and that from the EDOs of Australia: if the Commonwealth cannot meet its obligations to bridge 100 per cent of the gap to meet the SDLs, the gap would then become the reasonable excuse—remember that is the term: 'the reasonable excuse'—trigger in the Basin Plan that would allow the states to exceed the SDLs, the sustainable diversion limits. Again, the proof is there and we had it laid out before us. The submissions clearly show how this bill will unravel and undermine the Water Act to such a dangerous extent where we are left with no plan for the Murray-Darling.

This bill creates a framework that effectively allows governments to walk away from their commitments to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. With no remaining liability to meet the SDLs, with no requirement to meet the sustainable diversion limits—that is what we are talking about here. This is simply unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to all senators and to all parties, but again we know that the Labor, Liberal and National Parties are all working together in this most backward piece of legislation. I have described the bill as 'sloppy' and 'confusing' and that is shown even in the fundamental definitions. The expression 'long-term annual average quantities of water' is used, but what does it mean? There is no certainty as to whether the 1500-gigalitre limit is on entitlements or on long-term annual average entitlements. Because so much of it is unclear, that is why you start to question the intent. It is not just about the cap at 1,500, it is not just about 1,500 gigalitres, it is not just that the cap is actually this time in the act, it is also about the definition, it is about whole piece of legislation. You are left wondering what the intent here is.

Submissions by the EDOs of Australia—ACF and the organisations that put in the joint submission—take up this deficiency in the bill. They have questioned it very deeply. The Inland Rivers Network stated:

… there is no definition of what this means or how it is to be calculated, over what period of time.

It is an extraordinary way to craft legislation. We do know that unbundling of water from land has created a new asset that many irrigators have chosen to sell to create new wealth. This bill puts this asset at risk. Again, how extraordinary that we have the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor putting this asset at risk. This is another very serious outcome if this bill is passed.

The bill removes the current surety businesses have that a guaranteed buyer—the Commonwealth—will be available should they wish to sell water entitlements surplus to their requirements. The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales in their submission examines the case of a farmer who has achieved required water efficiency and seeks to sell any part of their water entitlements as a positive investment. In their submission the NCC New South Wales stated:

Constraints on the purchase of water for the environment through the market will reduce demand and therefore market prices, reducing the potential for financially viable investments.

This bill is contrary to the notion of open markets. The coalition is supposed to be the party of open markets, and there are times that they work and do assist, and this has been an example of it. Here we have a bill that is contrary, as I said, to the notion of open markets that this government trumpets. It is contrary because it seeks to remove the choice for farmers to sell surface water entitlements in the open water trading market.

A number of submissions to the inquiry, including the ones from the EDOs of Australia and the Inland Rivers Network, reminds us that a 2012 Marsden Jacob Associates survey of the MDB water entitlement sellers found that 80 per cent of irrigators considered that the sale of their water had been a positive or very positive outcome and that a large number of those sellers remained in the area and continued farming. I share that information because it contradicts one of the myths that has been put around to try to justify this change with regard to water assets.

The EDOs of Australia note that contrary to assertions that, 'banks directly forced irrigators to sell water', the 'survey results suggest that irrigators made the decision to sell by themselves, in consultation with family and advisors taking into account their assets and liabilities, uncertainty about future water availability, and other factors.' We saw the way that the water assets system was set out under the plan has worked very well.

The Greens do share the concerns of the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, the River Lakes and Coorong Action Group, and the other groups that have put in very well thought out, very well argued submission to the inquiry on this bill. The Murray-Darling Basin is already suffering deep decline. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was important and is a contribution and is certainly a positive, but probably so much more was needed. Rather than going forward, with this legislation we are going backwards.

For that reason the Greens will move a second reading amendment. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

But the Senate is of the opinion that water purchases managed under the Act should be driven by an evidence based approach premised on the latest climate and hydrological science.

This legislation is a great set back. I recommend our amendment. It is the one contribution we can make to try to get water policy in this country back on track.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too stand today to speak about the Water Amendment Bill 2015, and I commend this bill to the Senate extremely enthusiastically. I think it is one of the most significant pieces of legislation for the rural and regional communities of this country, particularly those communities that are along the length and breadth of the Murray-Darling Basin's rivers and tributaries.

Before I actually talk about why I am so keen to support the Water Amendment Bill, I want point out a few things to the House and some factual inaccuracies that have been put on the table, some scaremongering and some completely unnecessary comments that have been put forward by some groups who have sought to undermine this piece of legislation. Firstly, I draw the attention of the House to the dissenting report of the Australian Greens party, which is a report that was tabled yesterday. The Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications, of which I am the chair, inquired into this particular bill, and the Australian Labor Party and the coalition both agreed that this bill should be passed. However, the Greens did dissent, and there are a couple of things in their dissenting report that I believe should be put on the record for the factual inaccuracy of what it said. In paragraph 1.3 of their dissenting report in relation to the 1,500 GL cap on water, which this piece of legalisation seeks to amend in the Water Act, the Greens stated:

It undermines the very Act it seeks to amend by overriding the Commonwealth's obligations to achieve the Sustainable Diversion Limits mandated in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan by limiting how much water it may buy back from willing sellers.

First and foremost, I want to very clearly put on the record it that in no way, at no time, never has there been any intention by the introduction of this piece of legislation for the coalition and obviously with the support of the Australian Labor Party that we would ever move away from the targets that we said we would stick to for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Those targets of 2,750 gigalitres and the additional 450 gigalitres, which take it up to 3,200 gigalitres of water returned to the environment, are targets that nobody, but nobody, has ever sought to move away from. I think it is mischievous of the Greens to suggest that there is in any way any intention by anybody in this process to move away from those targets. It is entirely unreasonable, it is mischievous and, in a sense, it is quite damaging because it seeks to undermine the very process the Greens, purportedly, are there to support.

Another comment in the Greens dissenting report was at paragraph 1.6, where they say of the bill:

It risks substantial expenditure of public monies on projects that may further reduce the net amount of water available to groundwater or downstream water users across the Basin.

I am not quite sure how they managed to come up with that particular statement. There is nothing at all in the legislation and there nothing in terms of real, substantiated and scientifically based evidence that would suggest that that is in any way true. There is nothing at all to substantiate that, and I note that in their dissenting report the Greens do not really give any reason for why they would make that comment suggesting less water would be available to groundwater or downstream water users. There is no reason whatsoever that that would be the case. As I said, we have never, ever previously moved away from the sustainable diversion limits mandated in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Furthermore, in paragraph 1.9, the Greens make the comment:

The water licensees who wish to sell water entitlements surplus to their requirements need the certainty of a guaranteed buyer in the Commonwealth, especially when times are tough.

There is absolutely no need for the Commonwealth to be in that marketplace. Since there has been a little bit of stabilisation in the market, we have already seen that the water market is finding its own level—pardon the pun. One of the main things that were a real problem was that, because the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder was such a substantial player in this market, its capacity to influence the water market very quickly, when something changed, was creating such a level of uncertainty that the growers, irrigators and others who wanted to participate in the water market were never quite sure from one day to the next what the market was likely to do.

For example, to draw your attention to how volatile the water market was, in 2007 the price of high-security water in the downstream regions in the southern connected Basin reach in excess of $1,200 for the temporary purchase of water for a 12-month period. When you consider that at times the purchase of permanent water has barely reached that amount, you can see how incredibly volatile this market can be. So, having such a big buyer in the marketplace can sometimes be a bad thing. If we just allow the market to operate as the market should operate, with genuine buyers and sellers of water on a commercial basis, the market will find its own price. Once again, that comment by the Greens was quite ill informed and perhaps a little bit mischievous.

Another comment made in the Greens' dissenting report was:

Only willing water entitlement sellers will sell their licenses. Indeed the unbundling of water from land has created a new asset that many irrigators have chosen to sell to create new wealth.

I think Senator Rhiannon made reference to this in her contribution a moment ago—that only willing sellers were selling their water. I can advise Senator Rhiannon that that is not the case. I come from a community in South Australia that is reliant on the River Murray for its very existence. Without the River Murray and the irrigation communities, my community would not exist. Many, many people sold their water entitlements in the past few years because of pressure from the banks. Sure, many of them did make a decision based on their business operations at the time, but in many instances those business operations were in such a dire state because of the uncertainty about their future due to water; the amount of water that had already been taken out of our communities and had put additional pressures on those that remained; and other impacts like the high price of the Australian dollar, low commodity prices and the like. So, while these people were not forced in any way, shape or form to sell their water by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder or by the Commonwealth government, many of them were in a position where they had no choice but to relinquish their entitlements because of the bottom line and pressure from the banks.

The survey from which Senator Rhiannon was quoting was done in 2012. It needs to be noted that that survey was undertaken at a time when there were very high quantities of water in the river. We had had a couple of years of extremely high inflows into the river, with very high rainfall in the catchment area. It was also before the implications of the start of the implementation of the Basin Plan had been seen. Quoting from a survey done at a time when there were a whole of circumstances that are largely irrelevant to the situation we find ourselves in today is probably opportunistic in terms of using a report that suits your argument but does not necessarily accurately reflect the current situation.

In the committee's hearings during the process of inquiring into the bill, the most disappointing thing was the obvious complete and utter selfishness of organisations like the Australian ENGOs, some of the green groups and even the Alexandrina Council from down around the Lower Lakes. My argument to them is that there is nothing at all in this legislation that should give anybody any concern that we do not intend to meet our targets as set by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Therefore, why would an environmental group even care where the water came from as long as those targets were met? To be out there actively advocating that we should not have a cap on water—something that irrigators have been desperately crying out for and something that will be of immense benefit to our irrigators, our irrigation communities and the support businesses that rely on them—and that these people cannot have the kind of security that this piece of legislation is likely to deliver is, I think, the height of selfishness. All the narrative about establishing the Basin Plan in the first place was around the fact that we needed a certain amount of water for the delivery of water for environmental purposes.

I think in the end we established an agreed position on the amount of water that we would seek to return to the environment. For ENGOs and some of the green groups to come back and say that we need to take more money from irrigators and not even allow a process that tries to get water other than by taking it out of productive use is, I think, just extraordinary. It beggars belief that they would even consider that that was an acceptable thing to do. As I said, the most important thing about this piece of legislation, which caps the amount of water that can be returned to the environment from buybacks at 1,500 gigalitre, is that it means our river communities can now have some certainty and surety into the future about the decisions that they are going to make around their businesses.

For the last four or five years, perhaps even longer than that if you take into account the impacts and the effects of the millennium drought that the basin has been suffering from prior to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan negotiations and initial implementation, irrigators have been living in an extraordinary world of total uncertainty. They do not know from one day to the next what is likely to be taken out of their community. They have no idea of what their entitlements are likely to be. They have no idea of what the future of their community will be, and they have seen their communities decimated by a thousand cuts. One week we take this amount of water out of the community. The next week somebody sells their water because they are desperate. The next week somebody sells some more of their water, possibly because of an opportunistic reason where they see it as a way of getting out and liquidating some of their assets.

What we have seen over the last six, seven, eight and nine years is extraordinary uncertainty for the communities in the basin. The possibility of being able to return some certainty to those irrigators and the irrigation communities by them knowing that only a small amount of water is likely to be taken out of productive use from buying it back from irrigators means that they can now start making plans about their future—whether they are going to replant or whether they are going to seek to buy water. It would give stability back to the water market and allow the price of water to stabilise for the first time in as many years. This is really good news for our river communities.

As I said, I was really quite distressed to think that the ENGOs and the green groups would think of denying irrigators the opportunity to be able to get some certainty back into their lives simply because they think there might be some hidden agenda here somewhere and somehow, all of sudden, miraculously, the Australian government, the Senate or, for that matter, the Australian Labor Party would countenance moving away from the mandated targets that we were seeking to achieve.

The other thing that is probably really quite distressing in the debate that we have seen from the Greens and the ENGOs is the suggestion that the coalition actually does not care about the environment. At the end of the day, the sustainability of our entire community is going to rely on a healthy river system. We recognise very clearly that a healthy river system is something that is absolutely essential. But there is no point in us having a healthy river system when we have achieved an excess of water but we have actually taken it all from productive use and there is no more water available in the basin for agricultural production. That seems to me like a very short-sighted approach to achieving water for the environment.

What we have always said—and it is something that I have said in my community for as long as I can remember—is that we should always seek to achieve the water for the environment by means other than by taking water out of productive use. Only when we have exhausted every possible avenue within our financial limits to achieve water targets by alternative means, whether it is by constraints management, whether it is by on-farm or off-farm efficiencies or whether it is by works and measures—whatever it happens to be—only when we have exhausted every single one of those options should we start taking water out of productive use. We are a very lucky country and we have the opportunity for future economic prosperity through agriculture, but we are not going to be able to realise that agricultural prosperity for Australia if we take water out of productive use before we even try to implement efficiencies savings in the system.

There is one thing that I think has been missed in this whole argument, particularly by those ENGOs and the like who gave evidence. When I asked the ENGOs of Australia how many of the people who worked in their organisation actually lived outside of a capital city, how many of them lived, resided and participated in communities along the Murray-Darling Basin system, their answer was that they had no-one. What I would like to say to many of these groups who are very happy to stand up and grandstand about these things is that maybe it would do them the world of good to go out and spend some time living in these communities to realise that the very people who rely on the water that comes out of the river are the people who are striving to do the right thing by their river system.

If you look at the impact that has occurred within the irrigation districts in the place that I live, in the Riverland of South Australia, from the amount of water that has already been taken out of our irrigation communities, you will see that it is having a Swiss cheese effect. What it is happening is that when you take 20 per cent or 30 per cent of the water out of a community, the remaining 70 per cent of irrigators still have to pay for the infrastructure for the delivery of their water. They still have to pay all the overheads and the costs of pumping a lesser amount of water to a lesser amount of farms. So all we end up doing is pushing out the price of water and reducing the productivity in the region. This is not a responsible way to go about addressing this problem. I am not saying that, at the end of the day, the fact that we have had to take some water out of productive use may not have been necessary. It just disappoints me that we do not make that way of getting water the last resort; instead, we go out and take in excess of 1,100 gigalitres of water.

The other thing that I would like to put on the record is that in South Australia we have met our basin and valley targets of returning water for environmental purposes. Every single drop of water that has been returned in South Australia for environmental purposes in order to achieve the outcomes of the sustainable diversion limits in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has come from irrigators—every single drop has come from irrigators. I do not think it is unreasonable for irrigators in my home state of South Australia to feel comfortable about not having any more water taken from them until such time as all other avenues have been exhausted.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to say that on 27 August the SDL stocktake report was tabled. The SDL stocktake report is an independent report. It was commissioned and undertaken by independent assessors. It came back and said that, of the works and measures in the projects that had been put forward to try to return water that had been put up by the state governments across the Murray-Darling Basin, in its independent opinion, after undertaking the assessment, the water recovery targets that were in train at that time after being significantly discounted and being very conservative estimates would already deliver 500 gigalitres. We said we would deliver 650 gigalitres by this means. The SDL stocktake report said we were already on track to get a 500 gigalitres. If you consider the level of discounting that had been applied to the application and calculations of the existing projects, there was a huge amount of confidence in the report that the full 650 gigalitres of the water recovery targets would be able to be met and that possibly more than 650 gigalitres would be able to be returned through the works and measures that were on foot.

In conclusion, it gives me great pleasure to be here and to be able to say to the Senate that I support the Water Amendment Bill 2015 that seeks to put a cap at 1,500 gigalitres on the amount of water that is able to be bought back from irrigators as part of the targets that are sought through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It gives me pleasure because I believe that it is the right thing for our river communities. I think it is the right thing for our economy in Australia. I think it is a responsible form of action to take to ensure the one thing that we said we would do in the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was deliver a triple bottom line.

Initially the plan was skewed towards only environmental outcomes and was devil may care about the consequences for our river communities and our irrigators. We successfully changed it in conjunction with the opposition, which was then the government. I think that we achieved a very sensible outcome. We sought to achieve an environmental outcome that reasonably and rationally considering the communities that live along the river and that rely on water and irrigation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also would like to rise to give my support to this bill, the Water Amendment Bill 2015. I want to say up-front that nothing in this bill changes the amount of water that will be provided for environmental purposes under the Basin Plan. That figure broadly remains at the level of 2,750 gigalitres, although there is an adjustment mechanism in the Basin Plan which provides some of range around that figure. This bill does not change that one iota. It does not change the amount of water that will be provided to the environment.

When I was here earlier listening to Senator Rhiannon, she said that somehow this revealed that the Nationals in particular and the coalition by extension do not care for the environment and are not prioritising the environment. The question that has to go back to her is: how does this reveal any lack of concern for the environment when it does not actually change the amount of water that will be provided to the environment?

It changes only one thing. What it does change is how we will recover that water to provide for the environment. The isolated opposition of the Greens to this reveals their true agenda. It is not to protect the environment. It is that they oppose irrigation. It is not that they want to protect wetlands. It is that they do not like intensive agriculture and they want to destroy jobs in the communities that rely on intensive agriculture for their livelihoods and sustenance and which produce the affordable foods that Australians are used to being able to consume. There are many, many farmers that rely on the Murray-Darling Basin and many families that rely on those farmers earning an income. The Greens want to make sure we have unrestricted buyback to rip the economic guts out of these communities and to rip the economic rug out from underneath those farming families.

We in the National Party and in the coalition generally are opposed to that kind of approach. We are opposed to that kind of approach because we support families that live in the basin. We support the jobs that have been created in the basin. We support the very diverse and affordable food that all Australians can eat thanks to the Murray-Darling Basin.

This is something that is really important for the whole country. It is not just important for the 2.1 million people and families who live in the basin. It is important for all Australians because we all rely on the food that is grown in the Murray-Darling Basin every week when we go down to Coles and Woolies. Every week when you go down to the supermarket you are most likely buying something that was grown or started being grown in the Murray-Darling Basin because it accounts for a full 40 per cent of agriculture in Australia. Australians are used to being able to have pretty cheap food. They are used to being able to access food at a low price. There is nothing wrong with that. But if we were to shut down the Murray-Darling Basin, which the Greens want to do with their crazy target of 6,700 gigalitres, that would completely remove the ability of Australians to buy cheap food in their shopping trolleys every week. It would not just affect the families in the basin; it would affect every family in this country if we were to follow the Greens approach, stop our ability to grow food and make food more expensive across our entire country. I do not support that. I want to support the people who grow our food in this nation. This bill helps to do that. It helps to do that because it re-emphasises that this government is committed to finding an environmental outcome which is practical and does not reduce the productive capacity of Murray-Darling Basin communities.

There are two main broad ways to recover water. There is a third way which I will go into later in my speech, but there are two main broad ways to recover water to go back to the environment. I agreed with Senator Rhiannon when she mentioned in her speech that we have overallocated water in the Murray-Darling Basin. All sides of politics agree with that. Indeed, it was the former Howard government that kicked this process off on Australia Day in 2007. There was an overallocation. But there are two broad ways to deal with that overallocation. One way is to buy the water back from farmers and reduce the amount of water that is used for food production and therefore reduce the amount of food that is produced in the Murray-Darling Basin. That is one way.

The other way is to invest in ways of using water more efficiently so that we can still produce the same amount of food in the basin at the same prices we currently enjoy and have the same number of jobs but put the water savings made from those efficient investments towards the environment. That is the other way to do it, and I believe that we should emphasise that way and not the buyback way. The buyback way destroys communities, it destroys jobs and it lessens our ability to grow cheap and affordable food. The infrastructure way is the smart way because it makes us use water smarter and more efficiently. We can still provide that water to the environment, but we will not undermine the economic efficiency of basin communities.

That is exactly what this bill does. This bill does that because it gives basin communities, the 2.1 million people in the basin, the certainty that the Basin Plan will not buy back more than 1,500 gigalitres. That is a lot of water. In round terms it is three times the size of Sydney Harbour that we will be buying back every year, on average. But it is much better to cap that amount to provide that certainty than to leave an open-ended commitment that does not allow people in the basin to plan for their futures and invest in their own lives.

I noted that Senator Rhiannon talked about the need to provide certainty to the environment, that frogs and fishes and wetlands and trees and all these other wonderful things in God's green planet deserve certainty on how to plan their futures. I think that people deserve that certainty too. I think people are part of our natural environment, a pretty important part of our natural environment and just as important, if I may go out on a limb, as trees, frogs and wetlands. They deserve certainty, and this bill provides them with that certainty.

There has been some contention and controversy that the Water Act cannot deliver a triple-bottom-line approach, which is what I am proposing here. I think we should treat people, the environment—trees and frogs—and society—the social structure in our communities—on an equal and level playing field. I think they should all be considered in a balanced way when we come into this place and make decisions on these matters. Those decisions need to be informed by the values we have, not just by the raw numbers and data that we have access to, because it goes to a values choice about how much you value someone's job and community. Those things are really important and they should be considered on an equal basis with environmental factors. That is what is broadly known as a triple-bottom-line approach.

I can understand why some consider that the Water Act may fail to deliver such a triple bottom line, because in the construction of the Water Act at a federal level it did get quite complicated. At a federal level the Commonwealth government does not have constitutional powers over our river systems. This applies particularly in relation to irrigation: powers over irrigation are reserved for the states under section 100 of the Constitution. So when the Water Bill was going through the parliament in 2007, other heads of power had to be relied on to provide the Commonwealth government with the powers to legislate in this field. That influenced the drafting of the Water Act. This is most prevalent in section 3, in particular—the objects of the act. Objects (a) to (h) are listed—I do not know how many that makes—but the key ones in this context are objects (b) and (c) which state:

(b) to give effect to relevant international agreements …

and all of those agreements relate to environmental issues such as wetlands and migratory birds—

(c) in giving effect to those agreements, to promote the use and management of the Basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes …

That is a description of this triple-bottom-line context, but it is important to note that that triple-bottom-line definition is preceded by the qualification 'in giving effect to those agreements'. Those international agreements, as I said, all related to environmental factors.

There is great legal controversy about whether or not those international agreements provide the government and the MDBA with the flexibility to act in a triple-bottom-line manner. I will not go into much more detail, but sections 20 and 21 are also relevant in this context, where the words 'giving effect to relevant international agreements' are repeated. Section 21 begins with the preamble that the Basin Plan is 'to implement international agreements', then later in that section it says that the Basin Plan is to have regard to things such as social, cultural, Indigenous and other public benefit processes and the consumptive and other economic uses of basin water resources. But again, those economic, social and Indigenous priorities are all subordinate, in a way, in those sections of the act, to the overarching environmental factors. That has clearly given rise to some concern that the Basin Plan will not be implemented in a triple-bottom-line way.

This bill helps to remove those concerns, because it clearly states that the government's approach will be defined by capping the amount of water that can be bought back and capping it in a way which limits the economic harm caused by reduced consumptive and productive water use in the Murray-Darling Basin. We will instead seek to implement those other ways of recovering water—the more efficient, smarter ways—so that we can act in a way which does not harm people's jobs, does not take families off their farms and does not reduce our ability to grow cheap and affordable food.

There was something else in Senator Rhiannon's speech which grabbed me: apparently we are doing this to help big water corporations, or some such. Corporations always seem to be the bad guys in the Greens' fairytales. Water licences are now primarily owned by the Commonwealth government, but they are not the ones of interest in this particular piece of legislation. The facts are that, apart from the environmental use of water, water licences are primarily owned by family farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. They are the people who own the asset, but they are actually not the people that we are trying to protect and target with this legislation, because they have an asset. They have a licence. As much as I want to see farming continue in this country, and intensive agriculture continue in the Murray-Darling Basin, they are not as harmed as other people when water is bought back. Under the buyback proposal an irrigator, a licence holder, has the option to sell their water licence, to achieve a good price for that asset and then have the flexibility, with those resources, to do what they like with the rest of their life. They can move to the Gold Coast or they can buy another farm somewhere else. Indeed, some of them have sold their licences and then bought other licences elsewhere. I think Senator Nash would well remember the Kahlbetzer family, who were able to sell, how much was it—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$300 million.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$303 million worth of water licences, I think, to Senator Wong. You only get one Senator Wong in your lifetime, and Kahlbetzer has certainly made every post a winner on that deal—$303 million worth of water licences were bought by the Commonwealth government and he took off to Africa and bought massive amounts of farms and water licences there, and we were left with effectively just air. I cannot remember—I stand to be corrected—but I think that $303 million bought 109 gigalitres of water. If I were over next to Senator Nash in the chamber, I could ask the departmental adviser. But 109 gigalitres works out at about $3,000 a megalitre—about 50 per cent higher than the usual average going rate for water. It was a great deal for one of those parties, and it was not the Commonwealth government; it was the Australian taxpayer, unfortunately. Those are the options available to irrigators. They have that flexibility after they sell their licences, and good luck to them.

But there are other people who do not have that option; they do not have that flexibility. When water is bought out of a small town and economic activity falls, the people who own the motel, the tyre shop, the newsagency, the bakery or the service station do not have any water licences—they do not get any bailout from the Commonwealth government—but their turnover and their revenue definitely fall. Their businesses are definitely affected. That has been an unfortunate consequence of the Basin Plan, but we want to limit that unfortunate consequence.

Just last year I was up in St George—I was there a few months ago as well. Last year I particularly went to speak to people in St George, a country town in south-western Queensland that relies heavily on irrigated agriculture. A big water licence was bought near a smaller town close to St George called Dirranbandi. That has had a terrible effect on the town. Agricultural consultants have had to leave because there is no more business for them. The wider business community has been affected, and it is causing quite a bit of harm.

The problem for St George is that there is still a lot of work to do. Under the Basin Plan, St George is slated to have its water use reduced by around 100 gigalitres. I should say that this is for the wider Condamine-Balonne region, but, under the current proposal, most of it will come from the St George area. Then there is potentially a common pool amount which would possibly amount to around 50 gigalitres from the area, depending on the review that will be done over the next year. So they are facing a 150 gigalitre reduction. It is about a 50 per cent reduction in water use in that district. It is a third of the overall Condamine-Balonne district. For various reasons that I will go into shortly, at the moment there is not the plan to take water from those areas. They will lose half their productive asset, half their economic asset. The whole town is only there because of this. St George exists because 30 or 40 years ago we built a place called Beardmore Dam. Other farmers came into the area and built ring tanks to store water from overland flow and started growing wheat, grains, cotton and all these other products that have sustained St George. It is a beautiful town, away from the coast, in our nation, and we should protect towns like St George. I certainly want to make sure they continue to flourish in the future.

At the moment we have achieved 50 gigs or so, so we have 100 to take back, possibly 150. At the moment around 50 gigs have been recovered in the Condamine-Balonne. What has been really disappointing is that, of those 50 gigs, only about four gigs—last time I checked it was about four, but it may have changed—was recovered through infrastructure, through that option of getting more efficient. The other 46 have been recovered through buyback. If that proportion continues, St George will no longer exist in its current form, unfortunately. It will be a much diminished town. I do not want to see that. I want to protect against that happening. That is why this cap is very important. It is very important to pass this cap, but it is not the only thing we must do to save towns like St George.

I would like to conclude by briefly talking about some other issues that we need to tackle in this field to protect towns like St George—issues that I hope will be taken up in the inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is visiting St George for a hearing on 29 September. I encourage all residents in the area to go along to that hearing, to make submissions and to have their views heard. Particularly, we have to get smarter at delivering the environmental benefits we want to deliver. For the Greens this is about reducing intensive agriculture. For those of us that are the rational political parties in this country—and I include the Labor Party in that—it is not about reducing intensive agriculture; it is about protecting the environment. That is what our goal should be.

When you go to St George and to the wider area, you learn about the environment. The Murray-Darling is not just one big old dry carpet like it is down here on the floor, where you put water down on one end of the carpet and it flows to the other end. It is not a series of interconnected garden hoses. It is a very different and diverse system. It covers a huge area across our country. In that part of the area, when you put water in and try to deliver a water-flow event, often the water will not push down the river system unless there is a big flood; it will bifurcate at the end of the river systems into wetlands, and those wetlands are often the ones we want to target and provide water to. But we can do that in a smart way or in a silly way. We can buy back water haphazardly and chuck water down the river. There are assets we can use in this region to make sure we get the same environmental outcome without destroying towns like St George and destroying the livelihoods of the 2,000 people that live there and the lives of about another 2,000 that live in the area. There are weirs on the Culgoa and Balonne rivers in the area that we can use more efficiently to direct environmental flows towards environmental assets in a more efficient way.

The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder are now the biggest irrigator in our country. They own the most amount of water right now—about 1,160 gigalitres of water. They are the biggest irrigator in our country and they need to get smarter about how they water their fields, just like we have expected farmers over the years to get more efficient at watering their own fields. They can do that by using assets in this region to make sure that, when we put water down the Balonne, half of it does not go down the wrong river and end up watering stuff which is actually not that much of the priority or not as important as other environmental assets. There is a weir there we can use and upgrade to direct the water to the appropriate places. I do give credit to the government, which has had a number of reports prepared on these issues recently, but now we need to act in the next couple of years to make sure that we do get smarter with this way of recovering water. I would add that we need to think about getting water from places other than just St George. There are other environmental assets upstream in the Condamine-Balonne region, around Chinchilla and Dalby, which also should be considered, particularly to minimise the impact on St George but also to help the micro and macro invertebrates is that part of the system.

The final thing I want to say is that this should not just be about water; this is about the environment. Just adding water is a simplistic way of trying to deal with this issue. This is not a cake mix that you buy down at your local shops and just add water to make it work. It needs a lot more sense to get a productive environment in our Murray-Darling system. We need to be smarter about this and look at what we are targeting, which is the environment, not people's jobs, which is what the Greens want to do.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the Water Amendment Bill 2015. Water is one of the most important resources for our nation. More specifically, it is a vital element for the prosperity of my state of South Australia. There has also been the rather vexed issue about who owns and has rights to the water as it flows through the Murray-Darling Basin. I remember the spirited discussions and debates we had in the past with our national cousins, particularly from Queensland, who were obviously concerned for their communities whilst South Australians were desperately concerned for the wellbeing of their communities. I also acknowledge that there has generally been a bipartisan approach. We had some differences with the now opposition when they were in government, but there has generally been a bipartisan approach to the need to get the balance right.

You cannot just advocate for environmental flows whilst ignoring the impacts on and the costs to local communities, many of whom are entirely dependent on the health and wellbeing of the Murray-Darling Basin—none more so, I would posit, than some of the communities in South Australia, who did it extraordinarily tough during the 10 years of drought when people like Tim Flannery and the Greens party were telling us that it would never rain again, the rain would not fall in the right spots, that we would all have to move north or to Tasmania, or whatever their claim of the day was. The reality is it was a dreadful drought and emotions were very high. People were fighting very hard for their livelihoods and their communities and to represent the interests of their states. But through it all there was an acknowledgment and an acceptance that the Murray-Darling Basin is a national river system. We have to coexist and use it wisely.

It used to frustrate me when we would discover at Senate inquiries and Senate estimates that there were thousands of kilometres of illegal structures in other states that were used to store water—they had no approval—when we had communities in my Riverland region of South Australia that were desperately in need of water allocations for their citrus crops. A huge toll was taken on many communities. Some farmers and growers left the land. Some risked it all and rolled the dice to see if they could continue building their prosperity. Some were successful and, unfortunately, some were not. But through it all there was general goodwill. The general goodwill was that the Murray-Darling Basin is the lifeblood of many communities. We have to come to a compromise that will provide benefits to the communities, meet our nation's requirement for a food bowl and, of course, achieve the environmental outcomes that are very important for the long-term health of any ecosystem.

I am pleased to be speaking on this bill. The coalition has committed to implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. It has committed to doing it on time; it has committed to doing it on budget. But, perhaps most importantly, it is going to have what some refer to as the triple-bottom-line focus that, as I mentioned, supports and maintains healthy, viable communities and the environment for the future. It is acknowledged—and there may be some dispute about this in other areas of Australia—that the basin is the food bowl of our nation. We need to make sure it is used sustainably. We need to make sure it is used prudently to ensure the survival and prosperity of both our communities and the environment for future generations. As a father—and even those of you who are not parents—I understand that we are the custodians of this land, we are the stewards of the resources and we need to make sure we are preparing our country for the challenges ahead.

I am delighted to say that we on this side of the chamber—and I acknowledge that it is not going to be opposed by those on the other side—are committed to working with the people of the basin to make sure that farmers and communities are viable and sustainable for the long term. It is not just about us; it is about future generations. The government, through the hard work of ministers and through the representations of many backbenchers who have a vested interest in this, from the point of view of representing the community—but who also have a clear and unambiguous understanding of what needs to be done—has worked with all stakeholders to deliver this triple-bottom-line outcome.

It is about delivering greater certainty. When there is greater certainty, there is an opportunity for businesses, community leaders, civic leaders, local governments, state and federal governments—every organisation imaginable—to plan for the future. Perhaps the greatest risk to planning is the unknown. The whims and dictates of bureaucrats, governments or personalities are the things that can have a dramatic impact, more often negatively than positively, in the sustainability and viability of our regional and rural Riverland communities. The government has tried to deliver that certainty. It wants to deliver certainty for farmers, businesses, communities and, very importantly, the environment, and that is what this bill does.

I will just touch upon some of the key elements of the bill. A key element for certainty for communities and businesses is how the government is going to cover its legislative obligations, principally in recovering water for the environment. The coalition has had—and I acknowledge Minister Birmingham's work on this when in opposition—a strong, steadfast and long-term commitment to returning the Murray-Darling Basin to health, whilst also recognising and supporting agriculture. It is no good having one without the other. It is no good just chasing the agricultural basket and ignoring the health of the river or the river system. Of course you cannot sustain it without a healthy river system, and yet there is no point in having a healthy river system if it is not going to be able to be utilised for the benefit of all Australians, not just the environment. It is about getting the balance right.

This is a common-sense and logical approach that I wish was applied more often in seeking legislative outcomes. But we have it here. The government has followed up on its election commitment to give priority to investment in water infrastructure efficiencies that return water to the environment through water recovery by purchase. Investment in infrastructure is the primary method of recovering water to improve the basin environment. I have observed some of that lack of infrastructure firsthand on a number of occasions. I want to pay credit to the South Australian Riverland communities who have invested very heavily in infrastructure to prove themselves to be some of the most efficient users of Murray-Darling Basin water. But there is a sense of frustration at times when you drive through the Riverland and you see the overhead watering of certain crops in the middle of the day, and that is simply because the infrastructure is not strong enough to cope with the demands for watering—the pipes are not big enough, and the cost of putting bigger pipes in is prohibitive particularly in difficult times. But there is this commitment from these communities that they want to do the right thing, so they install drip irrigation, they try to use appropriate methods, and going to such inefficient methods of watering is a last resort. It is driven by a lack of infrastructure; even so, they have done a mighty job. The frustration is compounded when they see, upstream, much less efficient methods of watering. That is a source of frustration and I know it is something the government has acknowledged, and I know that many other communities acknowledge that, given the right incentives, given the right infrastructure, they can do a better job as well. That helps the entire health of the system.

So the government has followed through on its election commitment, and that is what this legislation is about. It is about the government meeting its election commitment to cap water purchases and focus on the triple bottom line outcomes through improving our agricultural efficiency. This is an unprecedented investment—some $12 billion to implement the Basin Plan, with several outcomes in mind but, to sum it up, to better manage our waterways through the provision of improved key water infrastructure that will benefit the environment and agriculture. Every single day between now and 30 June 2019—some senators probably will not be here in 2019, Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, though I have no doubt that you will be—there will be $2.5 million invested in the future of agriculture in the basin. That is $3.9 billion going into infrastructure that will improve farm efficiency and productive capacity while returning water to the environment.

Earlier today we heard from Senator McKim in his first speech about how sustainability is the key driver for the next 100 years. When I was listening to the contributions made here I noted that the Labor Party got that mantra—they understand that sustainability is important and that is why they are not opposing this bill; they understand that investment is the key to getting productivity outcomes and environmental outcomes. What I do not understand is how Senator Rhiannon, from the Greens party, could stand up and say the Greens were opposing this bill—they are opposing it when it is all about getting better environment outcomes along with better agricultural outcomes. It is a win-win—$12 billion invested into a plan to protect the environment and protect agriculture in this country, and there are people that are opposed to it! That makes no sense when it was said earlier today that sustainability is the key driver of the next hundred years. I would suggest that we have to take with a grain of salt the Greens' supposed commitment to better environmental outcomes. There is no balance there—there is no balance at all.

To prove that there is a human dimension to this and that we are not just talking generically about communities or groups of farmers, over 10,000 individual irrigators have benefited from the government's water efficiency programs that underpin the government's approach to implementing the Basin Plan. Already, 10,000 irrigators are doing better from a productivity point of view; they are delivering better environmental outcomes as a result of the government's approach to implementing the Basin Plan. Part of that plan is about a water recovery target. I mentioned before that $2.5 million a day is going to be spent through until 2019—and there is also a water recovery target of 2,750 gigalitres by 2019. We are going to prioritise water recovery efforts through investment in on-farm and off-farm water-saving infrastructure and efficiency projects over water purchasing.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I regret that I am unable to complete my remarks tonight because I have to replace you in the chair. But there is a lot more to say. I think we need to herald the brave, courageous approach that the government has taken. I acknowledge that the opposition have chosen not to oppose this legislation for petty politicking's sake—they may have had some variations in how they might have approached it, but they recognise that this is a very important step for the security and sustainability of both our environmental river system in the Murray-Darling Basin and the agricultural communities that rely so much on it.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great satisfaction to commend this particular bill, the Water Amendment Bill 2015, to the Senate. I do thank those opposite and the Labor Party for supporting its passage through the other place.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are you holding it up then?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjection, Senator McKenzie, and please address your comments through the chair.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Here is Senator Carr, from my home state of Victoria, who sat through the discussions in our own state about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—and how contentious it was. You saw, over and over again, rural and regional communities, which feed the food processors, in the western suburbs of Melbourne, who actually underpin your preselection. The workers in those food- processing outlets are funding and supporting you in your preselection process and yet you do not want to sit and listen anymore to us talking about legislation that will allow them to go on producing the fabulous, clean, green produce that our great state produces. Senator Carr, you harp on about advanced manufacturing and science, and yet you do not want to sit and listen to me—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your comments through the chair, Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, you do not want to talk about what will underpin agriculture production in our home state, Senator Carr, and food processing, and so many jobs of the Australian Workers Union in the food production sector going forward. And that is this piece of legislation, which caps water buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres. It is a happy, happy day that we bring forward this legislation.

This government and, I hope, the opposition also recognises that the Murray-Darling Basin is the lifeblood of food production in this country—from Queensland, right through New South Wales to the great food production state of Victoria, right through to your own home state, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, of South Australia. Water, as the Minister for Agriculture is often quite fond of saying, is wealth. If you are involved in agriculture in any way, shape or form, without water you cannot really do much. Ask the UAE! They have huge food security issues as a result of a lack of water.

The basin is the food bowl of our nation and we need to use it sustainably. We need to use that resource very carefully and in a considered manner. There has been a huge debate publicly. I remember public forums in Mildura where some of the horticulturalists up there actually had effigies, if you like, for want of a better word, of parliamentary bureaucrats and, indeed, parliamentarians with concrete-filled gumboots. They were throwing them into the Murray-Darling River as a result of some of those community forums where hundreds of people turned up to tell the then minister for water, Minister Burke, and Craig Knowles, what they actually thought of the process of constructing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They told them that it was a little airy-fairy and that we were picking out numbers and not focusing on outcomes. I think what the independent report, released last week, actually shows is that they were right. We had identified the environmental assets that we as a nation thought were important to protect and the fact that we had to collectively share water in order to ensure their sustainability and ongoing health. But we did not have a number on what that looked like. The environment is fickle: sometimes it rains, sometimes it doesn't. What you need one year to keep those particular assets healthy, you might not need another year.

The report released last week showed that we have been really good at what we do and that some of those assets need less water, but I will get on to that a little later. I want to talk us through just how important the Murray-Darling Basin is and indeed irrigated agriculture. Located within the Murray-Darling Basin are 40 per cent of Australia's farms; 70 per cent of our irrigated land area; nine per cent of people are employed in agriculture and related support service industries; and about three per cent of people are employed in food product manufacturing and agricultural product wholesaling.

Indeed, as I mentioned in my comments, through you, Chair, to Senator Carr, there is food-processing, production and export industries in capital cities right through the Murray-Darling Basin states that actually provide many jobs. Over 300,000 jobs are currently in food manufacturing in Australia and over half of those are located in regional Australia. So there are many jobs tied up in ensuring the ongoing sustainability of agriculture production throughout the Murray-Darling Basin.

We did have a millennium drought. Irrigated agricultural production is a significant industry and, in 2012-13, it contributed $6,800 million. In 2013 irrigated agricultural production in the basin accounted for over 50 per cent of our total irrigated produce and 100 per cent of Australia's rice. Isn't it fabulous that we are exporting rice to the world? From a water perspective, we can actually produce rice really efficiently. Ninety-six per cent of Australia's cotton is grown in the basin; 75 per cent of Australia's grapes, and most of that is in my own home state of Victoria, right in Andrew Broad's great seat of Mallee; 59 per cent of Australia's hay; and 54 per cent of Australia's fruit. And did you know—here is a little known fun fact—that 80 per cent of Australia's pear production actually comes out of the heart of Senator Carr's state and mine, and that is the Golden Valley, the heart of irrigated agriculture in Victoria? And 52 per cent of Australia's production of sheep and livestock, and 45 per cent of Australia's dairy production are undertaken in the basin. When you look at our dairy production and what it is actually contributing, off the Melbourne wharfs, it is our largest export every day. I am sure there are a few MUA workers whose jobs rely on the great Murray Goulburn, which produces fabulous product right throughout Victoria but indeed in the irrigated agriculture sections, particularly around Shepparton, Katunga and the like.

But it is not just about agricultural production, as we have discussed. This is about getting a triple-bottom-line result. This was always about getting a triple-bottom-line result for agricultural production and the ongoing financial sustainability and local economic benefits, not only for famers but for the regional communities in which they find themselves. It is also about the environment—those environmental assets that as a nation we have deemed important enough to share water on. Let's face it: water did not get into the Constitution; it was not a Commonwealth responsibility, because we were fighting about it then and we are still fighting about it. So, to actually have a bipartisan approach is quite fabulous, because it took a while to get some of the states onboard.

Did you know that the Murray River is actually the only river in the world that has its own flag? That is how important that river is to us, to our heritage and to the construction and pioneering spirit of those who came before us. But I will not bore you with that. Let's get onto the details of the bill. I think what is so exciting about how we have actually found the solution on how to balance those competing social, economic and environmental interests is that we have chosen to invest our money in infrastructure to assist farmers, to get some productivity gains, to ensure that they still can compete with the world with our fabulous clean, green product. We are investing $2.5 million every day, up to 2019, in the future of agriculture in the Basin—$3.9 billion going into infrastructure that will help improve farm efficiency and productive capacity while returning water to the environment. That has taken some work.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

I think about the water minister for Victoria at the time, and I know Senator Carr that you will join with me in thanking the previous Liberal-Nationals party state government's water minister, the leader of the Nationals in Victoria, Peter Walsh, for his very strong stance on this. He was not going to get steamrolled by South Australia. He was not going to get steamrolled by New South Wales. I know the now minister, Minister Neville, will be very thankful that the minister ensured that Victoria absolutely brought home the bacon when it came to positive outcomes with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He showed absolute leadership in that area, and I know Minister Neville will be very happy to oversee the implementation of that plan.

The 1,500-gigalitre cap on water purchase was a key pre-election commitment by the coalition, and we have done several Senate inquiries into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its various iterations over the course of the last government. Everybody in this place will be very clear that we were always going to back communities' capacity to provide their own wealth for their families and find those savings. I heard Senator Rhiannon's comments around needing to focus on having a strong evidence base, backed by science. I could not agree more. How can we make decisions on how to balance competing interests by using anything other than science? I think the more evidence we gather through this process, the more reviews that we do, the more we go through the actual implementation process and work out how much water we need in any given space, that will become a really exciting space. I look forward to the Greens' support of those various reports, which will absolutely be backed with science. Putting a certain number of gigalitres down the river and forgetting that the Barmah Choke exists I think just shows that evidence is really, really important; having an understanding of the local context of the policy outcomes you want to implement is really, really important.

On 5 August the Commonwealth, along with the New South Wales government, announced a $263.5 million investment for round 5 of the On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program. This investment upgrades farm infrastructure in the southern New South Wales basin, returns 20 gigalitres of water to farmers and returns 77 gigalitres of water to the environment, which I think is really important. When we talk about an evidence base, as I mentioned earlier, there was an independent stocktake report—which I am not sure you mentioned, Senator Rhiannon, but hopefully other Greens senators contributing to this debate may—on 27 August, into the sustainable diversion limit adjustment process. The report vindicated the progress of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan implementation and showed that projects are on track to deliver the environmental outcomes outlined under the Basin Plan. It actually showed that over 500 gigalitres less water is needed to meet the environmental targets in the plan and that states are on track to deliver the required projects. How fantastic that states and communities, farmer organisations and irrigation councils are working together to actually implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to the point that we are saving over 500 gigalitres of water. That is what we do know. It is not more water, Senator Hanson-Young, but less, which I think is absolutely fantastic.

Consultants Mr Turner and Mr Martin were chosen by the Basin Officials Committee to undertake the stocktake. This included not just assessing favourable projects that might give us the result they want. It was a comprehensive, independent report using a methodology that nobody could argue with—assessments of 36 supply and constraint measure proposals currently being proposed by jurisdictions as potential projects in the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. That is going to reduce the need for water recovery while still delivering the plan's environmental outcomes. That is fabulous news. So, congratulations, because when we look at water-recovery strategies—that is, buybacks and the impact of the former government's approach to finding water—that had devastating effects on our communities: $1 billion of taxpayers' money to devastate communities like the Pyramid Hill district, which lost over 50 per cent of its original high-security entitlement in less than a decade. We have the unrelenting buyback plan of the former government that devastated communities as water was removed from systems leaving a greater and greater burden on those who chose to stay.

We also had the millennium drought which further exacerbated the financial and mental stress on those families who were deciding if they should stay in the game—should they still be dairy producers—or should they sell their water entitlement and take their luck on the market with an ever-decreasing equity in their property? The former government's approach was very, very concerning, but I am very, very glad that they are on board with our commitment to infrastructure, and I am extremely grateful for their support in implementing this cut, because this is something that our community has called for—our farmer groups, the NFF, the irrigator councils and local producers right across regional Victoria were wanting to know that no more would somebody be swooping in and buying water in an open market with a chequebook that they could not compete with. They could not compete with the Commonwealth coming in and buying water for the environment and undermining them.

In the brief minutes remaining, I wanted to comment on some of the responses of the states, in particular over the last month or so, to this issue. On 7 September there was an article in The Landstating:

The South Australian and Victorian governments had opposed the 1,500GL cap, which threatened the fate of the Water Amendment Bill 2015 introduced into parliament in late May.

But the two states shifted position this week after the Parliamentary Secretary to the Environment Minister Bob Baldwin released an independent stocktake report on the progress of the environmental water flow targets—

The article went on to say:

Mr Baldwin—

the parliamentary secretary—

said the report showed that more than 500GL less water was needed to meet the plan's target, and it was reasonable to achieve up to 650 GL less water to meet the plan's 2750GL baseline target.

There were some issues, obviously—New South Wales southern irrigators are still disappointed—but the VFF in my home state is very, very happy. The South Australian and Victorian governments have both backed the federal coalition's plan to legislate the 1,500 gig cap on Commonwealth water buybacks, paving the way for bipartisan support. Obviously, both the Victorian and South Australian governments are led by the Labor Party. Minister Neville's spokesman said that the state was not opposed to the cap. The spokesperson for Minister Neville said:

We want to see certainty for communities and businesses in the (state's) north and environmental outcomes.

That is exactly what we want to see too—certainty—and I am so glad that Senator Carr is going to be voting in favour of this bill and supporting Minister Neville.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. I am concerned that Senator McKenzie has not explained to us why there are six government speakers—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Resume your seat, Senator Carr. Senator McKenzie, you have the call.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so passionate about this issue—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No you are not! You obstructed—the filibuster!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you had taken the time; if you were equally passionate, Senator Carr, about the productive capacity of our home state, you would also be rising to add your voice to the National Party, to the Liberal Party and to crossbench senators who support the cap. If you look at my contribution on this particular topic over the time that I have been here, you will see that this is not the first time that I have spoken about it.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At length on a non-controversial bill!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—just because you do not like the sound of my voice or what I am saying does not mean you do not have to listen.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are so many people supporting this. It is not just Senator Carr who is supporting this legislation, or the National Party, or the Liberal Party. The National Irrigators Council—Tom Chesson—said: 'We have long advocated for a legislated 1,500GL cap on water buybacks in the MDB and we welcome the legislation currently before the Senate to provide for this measure.' Equally, the NFF said that it is an excellent example of how to achieve good environmental outcomes while also taking steps to reduce the social and economic impacts of the plan on rural and regional communities. I am sure that the Labor Party country caucus will be rising in unison to add something other than carping from the sidelines and some positive input into this debate on such a significant bipartisan approach to water management and sustainable environmental outcomes.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Carping—was that a pun?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very funny, Senator Smith. I will pay that, especially since irrigation channels are full of them.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjections, Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Farmers Federation said that this was demonstrating significant goodwill, making comments publically about how the uncertainty had undermined community confidence. If there is one thing you need in agriculture it is confidence. I commend the bill to the Senate (Time expired)